Mao & Mr. Sato

CarneAsada said:

Thanks for the reference (are there similar ones for the FS, btw?), but under 6.0 we did not have a technical panel there to call the jumps and review them in slow motion, writing "e" and < for jumps with those errors (or I don't remember there being one, correct me if I'm wrong), so it was possible for someone like Hughes to do her Lutz in the far corner in the hope that a nearsighted judge would overlook it.

Click to expand...

Y'know, I don't think it's a big deal to be wrong about something, as long as we're arguing and debating in good faith. I kind of doubt that you're arguing in good faith here. It just seems like you'll keep twisting the argument so that you don't have to concede a single point. Disappointing.

The original argument was that the technical flaws that Mao had in her jumping technique weren't universally acknowledged as flaws under 6.0. I have cited numerous examples and evidence to show that that is not true. Flutzing and underrotating were clearly and specifically against the rules under 6.0. This isn't even about Mao and her coaches or blaming or whatnot. It's about a scoring system that is being inaccurately described here.

The fact that there was no technical panel back then and whether or not judges consistently noticed skaters making such errors is a separate, independent issue from whether or not those flaws were universally recognized as flaws per the scoring system and the rules of the time. They were absolutely recognized as errors and flaws. Case in point: in 1998, Frank Carroll never denied that flutzing was an error back then; he merely denied that Michelle Kwan flutzed. There's a distinct difference between the two.

Also, it didn't have the 90 degree rule; "rotation not complete" (less than required revolutions is for doubling/popping, I think) is more vague than the current under-rotation rules. Both wrong edge and rotation incomplete left the exact deduction up to the judges. It is less specific, as there are varying degrees for each kind of error.

Click to expand...

...Um, the exact deduction for wrong edges and underrotations is still left up to the judges under the current IJS. They can choose to give a skater a GOE like 0, -1, or -2 for a flutz after taking all qualities of the jump into account. They were given a range of deductions under 6.0 that they could apply depending on the severity of the error and they're given similar flexibility under IJS.

You're really nitpicking now with this argument about the rules back then being "more vague" or "not as clear." No, the rules back then are not the same as the rules now, and they were not as detailed. They were different systems. However, the rules back then were clear enough that there should be specific deductions for the flaws that inskate said weren't universally recognized as flaws. Nope. They were clearly punishable flaws under 6.0. It was in the rules. There were deductions spelled out. The end.

Thank you CarneAsada for your very detailed explanations regarding Mao's and jumps in general.

jaylee said:

Y'know, I don't think it's a big deal to be wrong about something, as long as we're arguing and debating in good faith. I kind of doubt that you're arguing in good faith here. It just seems like you'll keep twisting the argument so that you don't have to concede a single point. Disappointing.

The original argument was that the technical flaws that Mao had in her jumping technique weren't universally acknowledged as flaws under 6.0. I have cited numerous examples and evidence to show that that is not true. Flutzing and underrotating were clearly and specifically against the rules under 6.0. This isn't even about Mao and her coaches or blaming or whatnot. It's about a scoring system that is being inaccurately described here.

The fact that there was no technical panel back then and whether or not judges consistently noticed skaters making such errors is a separate, independent issue from whether or not those flaws were universally recognized as flaws per the scoring system and the rules of the time. They were absolutely recognized as errors and flaws. Case in point: in 1998, Frank Carroll never denied that flutzing was an error back then; he merely denied that Michelle Kwan flutzed. There's a distinct difference between the two.

...Um, the exact deduction for wrong edges and underrotations is still left up to the judges under the current IJS. They can choose to give a skater a GOE like 0, -1, or -2 for a flutz after taking all qualities of the jump into account. They were given a range of deductions under 6.0 that they could apply depending on the severity of the error and they're given similar flexibility under IJS.

You're really nitpicking now with this argument about the rules back then being "more vague" or "not as clear." No, the rules back then are not the same as the rules now, and they were not as detailed. They were different systems. However, the rules back then were clear enough that there should be specific deductions for the flaws that inskate said weren't universally recognized as flaws. Nope. They were clearly punishable flaws under 6.0. It was in the rules. There were deductions spelled out. The end.

Click to expand...

No one needs to twist points or avoid conceding anything, as you are absolutely right that flutzing and under-rotations were always flaws whether 6.0 or CoP, but under 6.0 the deductions were not applied as strictly and consistently, so some coaches let those flaws slide. Which I was trying to say and I suspect was inskate's originally intended point anyway, despite the poor wording. Latching onto that one sentence is just as nitpicky in my opinion as the bulk of that original post was spent explaining the technical problems with Mao's jumps.

CarneAsada said:

No one needs to twist points or avoid conceding anything, as you are absolutely right that flutzing and under-rotations were always flaws whether 6.0 or CoP, but under 6.0 the deductions were not applied as strictly and consistently, so some coaches let those flaws slide. Which I was trying to say and I suspect was inskate's originally intended point anyway, despite the poor wording. Latching onto that one sentence is just as nitpicky in my opinion as the bulk of that original post was spent explaining the technical problems with Mao's jumps.

Click to expand...

Ok, so some coaches let those flaws slide, and some did not. Therefore there was a choice made on the coach's part. There was no systematized acceptance of flaws under the 6.0 rules. Thank you for finally conceding this.

And no, I didn't just latch onto that one sentence, I responded to a good chunk of that post. The one sentence I cited most often is a very convenient summary of inskate's whole argument about the 6.0 system. And that argument sets the entire context for Mao's jump issues and why she had flaws that needed to be fixed. I had a legitimate disagreement with someone inaccurately describing the 6.0 system and its rules. Is that really nitpicking? I think you're nitpicking about whether I'm nitpicking.

jaylee said:

Ok, so some coaches let those flaws slide, and some did not. Therefore there was a choice made on the coach's part. There was no systematized acceptance of flaws under the 6.0 rules. Thank you for finally conceding this.

And no, I didn't just latch onto that one sentence, I responded to a good chunk of that post. The one sentence I cited most often is a very convenient summary of inskate's whole argument about the 6.0 system. And that argument sets the entire context for Mao's jump issues and why she had flaws that needed to be fixed. I had a legitimate disagreement with someone inaccurately describing the 6.0 system and its rules. Is that really nitpicking? I think you're nitpicking about whether I'm nitpicking.

Click to expand...

Would you like to nitpick over the definition of a legitimate disagreement, too? I think this back-and-forth has been a useful clarification for oversimplifications in the original post, as you don't seem to disagree with explanations of flaws in Mao's technique, or that raking one coach over the coals is unneeded, or with my final explanation of why early problems were overlooked. Hardly a disagreement or argument as we kept saying the same things. But thanks for adding a more detailed and nuanced explanation of the 6.0 situation.

Just a quick reply before I leave:

jaylee said:

Sorry, I just can't agree with what you're saying about 6.0. Technical flaws such as a flutz, mule kick/hammer toe, and underrotating were universally acknowledged as flaws under 6.0.

Click to expand...

English is not my native language, so I apologize for not making myself clear. The definitions of correct take-offs come from the 6.0 era, and the judges were instructed to penalize for them. Some of the commentators and coaches pais attention to them, and I know at least of 2 skaters who started reworking their Lutz before the judges started to really scrutinize the jumps (Joannie Rochette and Nobunari Oda).

However, a lot of coaches sort of... turned a blind eye to certain flaws, because it was easier to hide it from the judges, than to force a kid to learn the jump properly (and temporarily render him/her inconsistent & suffer criticism from the skater's parents and his/her federation). Hiding Lutzes in "the Lutz corner", where it was difficult for the judges to see the take-off edge, was common. Because there was a clause "if the judge isn't certain, a jump should be judged in the skater's favor" a lot of flawed jumps passed under the radar, so to speak.

The mule kick/hammer toe was even less criticized. Certainly, there were some coaches who did acknowledge that it could mess up a skater's timing (again, Joannie Rochette had a mulish take-off as a junior, but it was eventually fixed). However, I don't remember any commentarors criticizing it - Dick * Peggy thought Sasha's jumps were "exquisite", and never mentioned that her lack of consistency might be caused by her technique (among other things).

Oops, I have to go, I'll reply to the rest of your post when I get back. Again, sorry for not explaining things properly in the first place!

Well regardless of which jumping technique is better or most efficient, if the skater is a naturally talented jumper, the technique will not make that much of a difference, just think about skaters like Mao Asada, Miki ando or Midori ito. Their jump arsenal and consistency has been incredible despite not having been teached the most efficient technique as novice skaters. Naturally born jumpers are just naturally born jumpers!

mary01 said:

Well regardless of which jumping technique is better or most efficient, if the skater is a naturally talented jumper, the technique will not make that much of a difference, just think about skaters like Mao Asada, Miki ando or Midori ito. Their jump arsenal and consistency has been incredible despite not having been teached the most efficient technique as novice skaters. Naturally born jumpers are just naturally born jumpers!

Click to expand...

Not really, in the case of Mao, as inskate has comprehensively explained, her flawed technique was ok as long as her body was tiny but then when she grew up, more and more problems occured finally leading to her giving up on the lutz and salchow around 2009 and having hard time controlling the flawed flip too. Ultimetaly, she did have to go to the drawing board and re-learn the proper technique as the old one she was tought in her childhood was not sufficient enough for her to be able to fully rotate flips and lutzes and land them consistently with good flow-out, regardless of natural jumping ability she doubtlessly has. Mao's example actually proves the contrary to what you're claiming. Flawed technique is so hazardous that it can ultimately destroy one's jumps even if one has natural jumping talent and it is of a paramount importance that coaches teach young children the proper technique from the very beginning.

Bartek said:

Not really, in case of Mao, as inskate has comprehensively explained, her flawed technique was ok as long as her body was tiny but then when she grew up, more and more problems occured finally leading to her giving up on the lutz and salchow around 2009 and having hard time controlling the flawed flip too. Ultimetaly, she did have to go to the drawing board and re-learn the proper technique as the old one she was tought in her childhood was not sufficient enough for her to be able to fully rotate flips and lutzes and land them consistently with good flow-out, regardless of natural jumping ability she doubtlessly has. Mao's example actually proves the contrary to what you're claiming. Flawed technique is so hazardous that it can ultimately destroy one's jumps even if one has natural jumping talent and it is of a paramount importance that coaches teach young children the proper technique from the very beginning.

Click to expand...

I don't think so, despite people making such a big deal about jump techniques, some of the skaters who are considered to have text book techniques like Gao and Elizaveta are also some of the most inconsistent this season. I think a technique plays a big role, but so does other factors. But examples like Mao and Miki show that despite not always having had what is considered the most efficient technique, they were still exceptionally good jumpers, and Mao's jumps in particular also looked beautiful and effortless.

Then there are examples like Kanako who's technique really isn't the most pleasing to see, but it works for her.

mary01 said:

I don't think so, despite people making such a big deal about jump techniques, some of the skaters who are considered to have text book techniques like Gao and Elizaveta are also some of the most inconsistent this season. I think a technique plays a big role, but so does other factors. But examples like Mao and Miki show that despite not always having had what is considered the most efficient technique, they were still exceptionally good jumpers, and Mao's jumps in particular also looked beautiful and effortless.

Then there are examples like Kanako who's technique really isn't the most pleasing to see, but it works for her.

Click to expand...

I don't think you and Bartek are talking on the same page. He/She is talking about because of the flawed technique, Asada became more and more prone to underotations and inconsistency during 2008-2010 when her body continued to grow. You are talking about despite the flawed technique, her jumps still looked beautiful and effortless.

What you said didn't answer his/her argument that they were underroated and somehow inconsistent during that time, DESPITE her jumps looked nice.

Aren't you talking on a different topic to his/her?

mary01 said:

I don't think so, despite people making such a big deal about jump techniques, some of the skaters who are considered to have text book techniques like Gao and Elizaveta are also some of the most inconsistent this season. I think a technique plays a big role, but so does other factors. But examples like Mao and Miki show that despite not always having had what is considered the most efficient technique, they were still exceptionally good jumpers, and Mao's jumps in particular also looked beautiful and effortless.

Then there are examples like Kanako who's technique really isn't the most pleasing to see, but it works for her.

Click to expand...

Your argument with Miki is irrelevant since she actually has almost a textbook technique on every jump besides the flip. How can you even put Mao and Miki technique-wise in the same sentence? Miki's only problem was lipping but miraculously she was able to fix it which is extremely hard to do. Mao hasn't been able to fix her flutz and will most likely never do so. Proper technique in your jumps is essential in figure skating. As for Gao and Elizaveta, I think they are going through the changes in their body at the moment and this is the reason for their inconcistency. What their good jumping technique will do for them however is that after their body have gone through all the changes the jumps will stay with them, owing to great technique. Mao's terrible technique was sufficient, again, so long as her body was tiny but after she had grown she started to have tremendous jumping problems.

Kanako is another invalid example. Her atrocious technique does not work for her apparently if you look at the protocols. She notoriously underrotates her jumps and if I remember correctly also get "e" on her lutzes.

In the last 10 years, the only one with perfect technique in every jump is Carolina Kostner.

Perfect technique doesn't guarantee consistency, because she's still falling, stepping out all over the place.
Perfect technique just guarantee potential.

FlattFan said:

Perfect technique doesn't guarantee consistency, because she's still falling, stepping out all over the place.
Perfect technique just guarantee potential.

Click to expand...

Yes, agreed. Nerves and other factors play a significant role. I'd say perfect technique doesn't ensure consistency, though it helps. But imperfect technique really sets you up for (maybe even almost guarantees) INconsistency.

penguin said:

Yes, agreed. Nerves and other factors play a significant role. I'd say perfect technique doesn't ensure consistency, though it helps. But imperfect technique really sets you up for (maybe even almost guarantees) INconsistency.

Click to expand...

I dare say bad techniques can actually be counted on for consistency - of undesirable results.

mary01 said:

I don't think so, despite people making such a big deal about jump techniques, some of the skaters who are considered to have text book techniques like Gao and Elizaveta are also some of the most inconsistent this season. I think a technique plays a big role, but so does other factors. But examples like Mao and Miki show that despite not always having had what is considered the most efficient technique, they were still exceptionally good jumpers, and Mao's jumps in particular also looked beautiful and effortless.

Then there are examples like Kanako who's technique really isn't the most pleasing to see, but it works for her.

Click to expand...

Gao has a textbook technique?
She flutzes, her 2A is scary, 3F very iffy...
Gao has lots of other lovely qualities to her skating but jumping technique is definitely not one of them.

Liza is a completely different story, as is Miki after having fixed her flip.

FlattFan said:

In the last 10 years, the only one with perfect technique in every jump is Carolina Kostner.

Perfect technique doesn't guarantee consistency, because she's still falling, stepping out all over the place.
Perfect technique just guarantee potential.

Click to expand...

This simple point is what I have been trying to explain from the beginning.

enzet said:

Gao has a textbook technique?
She flutzes, her 2A is scary, 3F very iffy...
Gao has lots of other lovely qualities to her skating but jumping technique is definitely not one of them.

Liza is a completely different story, as is Miki after having fixed her flip.

Click to expand...

Not long ago every commentator was raging about how textbook Gao's jumps were, and as far as I know inconsistencies is not a very uncommon thing even for the skaters whom many posters scream textbook jumps about.

Bartek said:

Your argument with Miki is irrelevant since she actually has almost a textbook technique on every jump besides the flip. How can you even put Mao and Miki technique-wise in the same sentence? Miki's only problem was lipping but miraculously she was able to fix it which is extremely hard to do. Mao hasn't been able to fix her flutz and will most likely never do so. Proper technique in your jumps is essential in figure skating. As for Gao and Elizaveta, I think they are going through the changes in their body at the moment and this is the reason for their inconcistency. What their good jumping technique will do for them however is that after their body have gone through all the changes the jumps will stay with them, owing to great technique. Mao's terrible technique was sufficient, again, so long as her body tiny but after she had grown she started to have tremendous jumping problems.

Kanako is another invalid example. Her atrocious technique does not work for her apparently if you look at the protocols. She notoriously underrotates her jumps and if I remember correctly also get "e" on her lutzes.

Click to expand...

I would never consider Miki's jumps as textbook, but if they are then I'm happy and extremely delighted that Mao doesn't use the same technique as her. I respect Miki as a great jumper, but her jumps were never really something I enjoyed, since the way she jumped felt forced and always made me nervous due to the hunched back. and you blaming all inconsistencies of elizaveta and Gao to a growspurt, doesn't change the fact they are very inconsistent despite having what some call a textbook jumping technique. Just like flattfan said, perfect jumping technique doesn't guarantee consistency, it never has and never will!

Next time you and other posters begin to scream that this and that skater has textbook jumping technique, you should remember this; if the skater with the so called textbook technique, wasn't able to gain consistency nor great difficulty then this so called textbook technique is nothing more then useless

inskate said:

Just a quick reply before I leave:

English is not my native language, so I apologize for not making myself clear.

Click to expand...

No apologies necessary, your English is great, and even native speakers find it difficult at times to understand each other's points and arguments.

CarneAsada said:

Would you like to nitpick over the definition of a legitimate disagreement, too? I think this back-and-forth has been a useful clarification for oversimplifications in the original post, as you don't seem to disagree with explanations of flaws in Mao's technique, or that raking one coach over the coals is unneeded, or with my final explanation of why early problems were overlooked. Hardly a disagreement or argument as we kept saying the same things. But thanks for adding a more detailed and nuanced explanation of the 6.0 situation.

Click to expand...

I didn't delve into the other issues because I didn't have the inclination to at that point in time, so alas, I have to point out that lack of commentary is not equal to agreement or endorsement. We'll have to leave it there for now. Peace out.

mary01 said:

I would never consider Miki's jumps as textbook, but if they are then I'm happy and extremely delighted that Mao doesn't use the same technique as her. I respect Miki as a great jumper, but her jumps were never really something I enjoyed, since the way she jumped felt forced and always made me nervous due to the hunched back. and you blaming all inconsistencies of elizaveta and Gao to a growspurt, doesn't change the fact they are very inconsistent despite having what some call a textbook jumping technique. Just like flattfan said, perfect jumping technique doesn't guarantee consistency, it never has and never will!

Next time you and other posters begin to scream that this and that skater has textbook jumping technique, you should remember this; if the skater with the so called textbook technique, wasn't able to gain consistency nor great difficulty then this so called textbook technique is nothing more then useless

Click to expand...

What you're saying is ludicrous. Good technique is called "good" because it is good, not bad. And it does bring about plenty of desirable things for skaters. Carolina Kostner's inconsistency IS NOT caused by the fact that she has textbook technique. It is probably caused by some psychological problems or it can be actually anything but most definitely not her technique. There is loads of skaters who doesn't underrotate their jump and have good flow because they have good technique but it still doesn't mean that they cannot err. They can and they do, but if so, it is undoubtedly NOT spawned by their perfect technique.

On the other hand, skaters who have bad technique always, sooner or later, have problems with their jumps. Wide range of different problems, namely flutzing, lipping, underrotation, lack of control, poor flow, inconsistency etc. You can take any skater with bad technique and you are bound to find some or all of those problems. Off the top of my head Mao, Yukari, Sarah Hughes, Kimmie Meissner, Kanako, Caroline Zhang etc. The list could be much longer if given more thought.

You clearly cannot accept anything negative or critical said about Mao and try to repudiate that at all cost, to the point where you get confused with your own arguments. Firstly you put Miki in the same league with Mao, claiming that despite her having imperfect technique, her jumps has always looked effortless and beautiful, just like in the case of Mao - bad technique and yet good jumps. Now you use the same Miki Ando and admit that you've never enjoyed her jumps because they "felt forced". So, do they feel forced or are they beautiful and effortless? Stop using the same skaters to exemplify patently contradictory ideas.

Apart from that, do you really consider Mao's terrible triple flip with mule kick and her body parallel to the ice at the take-off as beautiful? Let me tell you something, Mao's triple flip looks much better now and is certainly easier to control now. I am sure that most people would rather prefer Mao's current flip than her previous one with that atrocious technique, if I were to make a poll for example.